[jiggyboy]

"The word of the victim is sometimes the only hard evidence that you have..."

That's a pretty low standard for "hard evidence". It's eye-opening that he's speaking in law school generalities instead of addressing the specifics. I guess that's one way to pretend that we don't know what didn't happen.

[MindBender26]

This is how I think this is going to go.

AG will drop charges or move to trial. If they move to trial, they will leak all over the place that case is very weak.

Judge, in pre-trial conferences, will warn pros that case is very weak, but he will give them a chance to out it on, although they are very close to a DVA (directed verdict of acquittal, the judge never letting case go to jury.)

Pros will put on case. Defense will tear it apart, but in a gentle way, so as to create no sympathy for Precious. They will allude to dozens of witnesses who are willing to refute everything the supposed vic says.

Kim, although called by pros, will be much better witness for def.

Judge will bend over backwards for pros, grant their motions, etc.

At end of States case, def will ask for DVA. Judge will ask pros if they have anything else to offer, etc. Judge will bend over backwards for pros and vic, then since there is nothing, will direct a verdict of acquittal without def ever putting on a witness.

[MindBender26]

>>"The word of the victim is sometimes the only hard evidence that you have..."

Totally false. A statement is far from hard evidence. DNA, fingerprints, time-dated records, etc. are hard evidence. Changing stories are not.

The problem for the State in this case is that the hard evidence screams for a not guilty verdict.

"The "word" of the victim is sometimes the only hard evidence they have..." and it is rarely enough to convict.